The Eugenie Bouchard Discussion Thread

Yep, agree 100%. That's why I said its so frustrating to watch him play. It's like he is satisfied with how dominant his service game is and doesn't need to do anything else. Without improving in the areas you listed he won't take anymore forward steps and won't lift himself to the level of the best players. He still has a lot of holes in his game and for as long as he's been on tour he appears to be what he is. The difference between him and Bouchard is that Eugenie has a much more rounded game and she looks better with every passing tournament.

Definitely true. The experts have stated her variety of serves is ahead of her age. Her ground strokes are heavy and somewhat her style. Her 2 handed backhand is hard and fast and a bit of an unorthodox style-I think to her advantage. She can hit it flat or with heavy top spin. I am only guessing that she grips it with her hands spaced somewhat further apart from the norm allowing more angling and directional control-like choking up on a bat...oh, yeah and she is always in attacking mode-big serves, moves up; deep return, moves up...

I'm a huge fan of men's tennis, but Genie is getting me interested in women's tennis again. It is nice to see a very offensive, exciting player that doesn't scream when she hits the ball - and she Canadian (and smokin')

Milos on the other hand is quite frankly one of the least exciting players on tour. I also can't stand how tsn switches away from the regular coverage to show Raonic no matter the circumstances. In the french open they switched away from Federer-Gulbis in the 4th set to show Raonic warming up!!! Are you freaking kidding me!! I want Milos to do well because he is Canadian but that stuff makes me like him less. In any case Roger has been my favourite player for the last 10 years so I will always cheer for him over any opponent.

I'm a huge fan of men's tennis, but Genie is getting me interested in women's tennis again. It is nice to see a very offensive, exciting player that doesn't scream when she hits the ball - and she Canadian (and smokin')

Milos on the other hand is quite frankly one of the least exciting players on tour. I also can't stand how tsn switches away from the regular coverage to show Raonic no matter the circumstances. In the french open they switched away from Federer-Gulbis in the 4th set to show Raonic warming up!!! Are you freaking kidding me!! I want Milos to do well because he is Canadian but that stuff makes me like him less. In any case Roger has been my favourite player for the last 10 years so I will always cheer for him over any opponent.

I hear what you're saying about Milos. He reminds me of Sampras with his demeanor, and I hated Sampras (maybe not hate - but always cheered against him). I can easily see people feeling the same way about Raonic.

That being said - he's on his way to becoming the best single's men player in Canadian history, as such, I will be cheering him on hard.

Definitely true. The experts have stated her variety of serves is ahead of her age. Her ground strokes are heavy and somewhat her style. Her 2 handed backhand is hard and fast and a bit of an unorthodox style-I think to her advantage. She can hit it flat or with heavy top spin. I am only guessing that she grips it with her hands spaced somewhat further apart from the norm allowing more angling and directional control-like choking up on a bat...oh, yeah and she is always in attacking mode-big serves, moves up; deep return, moves up...

The other difference, I see from a far as a non-expert, is that Raonic can make it too the top level and be one of those guys (if he puts it all together), Bouchard looks like she could be the best at her sport when she puts it all together, just the dominant force.

The other difference, I see from a far as a non-expert, is that Raonic can make it too the top level and be one of those guys (if he puts it all together), Bouchard looks like she could be the best at her sport when she puts it all together, just the dominant force.

One of the biggest things Raonic has to deal with that Bouchard doesn't though, is the fact that two of the best all time are still playing and winning and there's a third guy in there who may not be one of the best all time but he's still damned near as good as those other guys as well. That's in addition to the other guys who are pretty damned good too. It's an era of mens tennis where there's a very very very elite group at the top and it's been hard for anyone to beat them the last decade. It has really elevated the level of play from everyone as guys try and compete with these legends.

Womens tennis on the other hand doesn't have that kind of gap between the top and the rest of the field.

One of the biggest things Raonic has to deal with that Bouchard doesn't though, is the fact that two of the best all time are still playing and winning and there's a third guy in there who may not be one of the best all time but he's still damned near as good as those other guys as well. That's in addition to the other guys who are pretty damned good too. It's an era of mens tennis where there's a very very very elite group at the top and it's been hard for anyone to beat them the last decade. It has really elevated the level of play from everyone as guys try and compete with these legends.

Womens tennis on the other hand doesn't have that kind of gap between the top and the rest of the field.

Look at Nadal, he's the best clay court Tennis player ever, simply every. The guy dominates on clay like no one's ever seen.

True on that gap, but it also makes it really interesting because it's basically a gauntlet tossed down "Here's the mountain, climb it"

Raonic is too one dimensional to pose any kind of a threat against Federer

His footwork isnt good enough and he doesnt hit on the run very well. A bad combination.

Federer should cruise to an easy victory here.

Raonic is playing this match just like he plays all of his other matches. He is waiting for Federer to make a mistake on his own serve and then he'll try to take advantage. It's doubtful Federer will make that mistake but Raonic will patiently wait for it anyway. That's why he's frustrating to watch and that's why he doesn't beat the top players.

Raonic is playing this match just like he plays all of his other matches. He is waiting for Federer to make a mistake on his own serve and then he'll try to take advantage. It's doubtful Federer will make that mistake but Raonic will patiently wait for it anyway. That's why he's frustrating to watch and that's why he doesn't beat the top players.

Roanic is who he is. He is a very smart player who believes in analytics and plays the percentages while he plays. This is why he never changes his game. He is a very good player who can beat most of the best players on the tour. He just isn't good enough to beat the elite guys.

I'm not surprised that Federer won or even that it came in 3 sets. What shocks me is Roanic was broken in each set and couldn't even get one set to a tie-breaker. For a guy who lives and dies with his serve and plays solely to get each set to a tie-breaker this was really a dismal performance for him.

I'm not surprised that Federer won or even that it came in 3 sets. What shocks me is Roanic was broken in each set and couldn't even get one set to a tie-breaker. For a guy who lives and dies with his serve and plays solely to get each set to a tie-breaker this was really a dismal performance for him.

Ferderer may not be at the same level anymore, but I hope Milos looks at this and see what he has to climb to become elite. I think it could be in his game, perhaps he needs a new or another different coach to get him over the top.

Raonic is playing this match just like he plays all of his other matches. He is waiting for Federer to make a mistake on his own serve and then he'll try to take advantage. It's doubtful Federer will make that mistake but Raonic will patiently wait for it anyway. That's why he's frustrating to watch and that's why he doesn't beat the top players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guymez

Good observation.

Raonic doesn't seem to be able to adjust. So many flaws in his game.

Cant see him ever getting much better than his current ranking.

Yes, he seems like he cannot adapt to changes well. He seems to coast in the same gear not able to take his game to another notch when facing a tougher opponent. I guess, it boils down to mental toughness. It seems he has the tools and fundamentals but mentally difficult to switch strategy or push himself to another level of play. Not much consistency for aggressive plays, mental toughness and or confidence (particularly, this game). Where is the intensity? Get pissed off and play harder....

Ferderer may not be at the same level anymore, but I hope Milos looks at this and see what he has to climb to become elite. I think it could be in his game, perhaps he needs a new or another different coach to get him over the top.

He sure needs something. Maybe a different coach, certainly a different attitude. He reminds me of Peyton Manning a little bit. He relies on his game plan and can run it to perfection but as soon as that game plan isn't working he's lost with no ability to adjust and will keep running it anyway. Plays with no emotion and because of that is unable to dial it up in big games when his opponent does.

Ferderer may not be at the same level anymore, but I hope Milos looks at this and see what he has to climb to become elite. I think it could be in his game, perhaps he needs a new or another different coach to get him over the top.

At this rate, Milos can close the gap when the other top players age and or retire...Not much "get mad and play harder with intensity" in Milos mental makeup. It seems when the going gets tough, his mental game falls apart or clams up into a shell. Perhaps he is not mentally mature enough yet...

He sure needs something. Maybe a different coach, certainly a different attitude. He reminds me of Peyton Manning a little bit. He relies on his game plan and can run it to perfection but as soon as that game plan isn't working he's lost with no ability to adjust and will keep running it anyway. Plays with no emotion and because of that is unable to dial it up in big games when his opponent does.

I will say, it's hard to fail him too much (sort of) because that game plan he has puts him above 99% of professional Tennis Professionals, the problem that top 1% is ridiculous.

Eugenie: "Wimbledon is much bigger than the Stanley Cup, so you can't compare the two"

Suuuuure Eugenie, like anyone cared about Women Tennis before you showed up in it. Not that I am against her or any dislike in any way, but that comment bothered me. It's like Golf and the NBA in Canada. No one in Canada cared about golf until Mike Wier came into the picture and won the Masters, and Steve Nash started winning MVP's in the NBA.

Yes, he seems like he cannot adapt to changes well. He seems to coast in the same gear not able to take his game to another notch when facing a tougher opponent. I guess, it boils down to mental toughness. It seems he has the tools and fundamentals but mentally difficult to switch strategy or push himself to another level of play. Not much consistency for aggressive plays, mental toughness and or confidence (particularly, this game). Where is the intensity? Get pissed off and play harder....

Not much energy or sharpness today.

Making it to the semis of a major is huge. He is only 23 years old remember. He needs to work on his footwork, but besides that he has the best serve in tennis by far which will keep him in the top 10 for many years as long as he stays healthy.

Eugenie: "Wimbledon is much bigger than the Stanley Cup, so you can't compare the two"

Suuuuure Eugenie, like anyone cared about Women Tennis before you showed up in it. Not that I am against her or any dislike in any way, but that comment bothered me. It's like Golf and the NBA in Canada. No one in Canada cared about golf until Mike Wier came into the picture and won the Masters, and Steve Nash started winning MVP's in the NBA.

Canada doesn't really care about golf again now that Weir pretty much sucks and Tiger lost his voodoo powers.

To be fair, for HER, this is way more important than the Stanley Cup, so it's probably true that she feels that way. Wimbeldon is also more of a global phenomenon than the Stanley Cup, so in actuality she's probably right.

Eugenie: "Wimbledon is much bigger than the Stanley Cup, so you can't compare the two"

Suuuuure Eugenie, like anyone cared about Women Tennis before you showed up in it. Not that I am against her or any dislike in any way, but that comment bothered me. It's like Golf and the NBA in Canada. No one in Canada cared about golf until Mike Wier came into the picture and won the Masters, and Steve Nash started winning MVP's in the NBA.

Where in that quote is she referring to Canada? Internationally, Wimbledon >>>>>> Stanley Cup